A federal judge in Los Angeles threw out charges against three alleged white supremacists, saying that the First Amendment protected their speech. Robert Rundo, Robert Boman, and Aaron Eason, members of the Rise Above Movement (RAM), had been charged with conspiracy to commit rioting under the Anti Riot Act of 1968. The trio allegedly used the Internet to coordinate combat training, travel to protests, and attacks on protestors at three gatherings in California. District Court Judge Carmac J. Carney ruled that the federal Anti Riot Act, which was enacted during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, was too broad in regulating free speech.
A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that a local county official who temporarily blocked a constituent from her Facebook page violated the First Amendment, making this the first court of appeals ruling regarding whether the First Amendment applies to government-run social media accounts.
The Justice Department has requested Facebook provide information on activists involved with the "DisruptJ20” protests which occurred during President Trump's inauguration. The American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that the request not only chills free speech, but also gives the DPJ unfettered access to thousands of personal records.
Over the weekend, President Trump took aim at players who have more explicitly over the past year taken to kneeling, sitting or raising a fist during the playing of the National Anthem in order to bring awareness to racism and police brutality. In response to the President's tweets, NFL players in games across the country responded by kneeling or sitting out the national anthem. Debate bubbled over on social media over whether this was a fireable offense or freedom of expression.
In banning a series of ads by disparate groups, the Washington Metro finds itself in hot water with the A.C.L.U. which is, among others, representing, Milo Yiannopoulos, because even "speech we hate" is bound by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
A personal website of a public figure is not subject to First Amendment restrictions, and so the site operator can block users. But a recent federal ruling says "the suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards."